Re: Thread 2: 60-day issue

[Karl Denninger <karl@Mcs.Net>]

> At 09:55 AM 12/26/96 -0600, Karl Denninger wrote:
> >
> >That the existing registrar has a fucked-beyond-belief (sorry, that's the
> >only way to describe it) policy DOES NOT give rise to the right of the IAHC
> >to implement yet another one of these.
> >
> >Publication is sufficient.  Why not design something similar to CURRENT
> >Trademark practice in the US?
> >
> >--> The domain issues immediately *just like a dba or corporate name*.
> >--> Publication occurs for, say, 60 days.  During that time period the
> >    domain name is CONTESTABLE.
> >--> After 60 days the publication period ends and the domain becomes by
> >    policy INCONTESTABLE.  You can still sue, but that's the only way to 
> >    destroy it now.
> >
> >That solves the problem, gives rise to the SAME kind of protection for
> >domain holders that the IAHC claims to be trying to create, and yet does NOT
> >screw up business entities any more than the existing legal system does in
> >every other walk of life.
> >
> >Please tell me how THIS policy would not meet the needs Carl.
> 
> Yes, your proposal is a very good one.  If I had been appointed to the IAHC
> I would likely have suggested it.  After a while I realized why it's not
> absolutely the best idea, however.
> 
> Let's flesh it out.  Domain issues immediately.  Then, for 60 days, if
> *anyone complains*, it does not matter who or why, the domain name gets
> turned off instantly.  But then, after the 60 days is over, it gets turned
> back on.  (Unless someone gets a court order to block it, of course.)
> 
> If nobody gripes during the 60 days, then it remains on, and the registrar
> cuts it off only if there is a court order.
> 
> I trust you can see the flaw in this.  What happens is, some jerk just sits
> there doing nothing all day but firing off oppositions, or threatening to
> do so.  Pay him fifty bucks and he agrees not to file an opposition.  We
> might just as well assume that at least one such letter will be written for
> each domain application, in which case it works out to being the same as
> the present IAHC proposal.  Indeed I can imagine someone setting up a perl
> script that does nothing all day but read the published applications and
> generate challenge letters.
> 
> Nonetheless, maybe the world's supply of jerks is small enough that some
> applications would go unnoticed by such jerks.  So maybe what you propose
> would, in fact, work out.
> 
> Another variant is this:  Domain issues immediately.  Then, for 60 days, if
> anyone presents a registered trademark from any country that's identical to
> the domain name, the domain name gets turned off instantly.  But then,
> after the 60 days is over, it gets turned back on.  (Unless someone gets a
> court order to block it, of course.)
> 
> If nobody gripes during the 60 days, then it remains on, and the registrar
> cuts it off only if there is a court order.
> 
> How do you like that proposal?

That's obviously not the intent nor how I'd go at this.

What says that CONTESTING the name causes instant revocation?

No.  You need an injunction to get the name yanked during the 60 day
interval.  Just like in REAL LIFE if you want to stop someone from operating
a business down the street with a name you believe is infringing.

That's why we have COURTS Carl.

--
-- 
Karl Denninger (karl@MCS.Net)| MCSNet - The Finest Internet Connectivity
http://www.mcs.net/~karl     | T1's from $600 monthly to FULL DS-3 Service
			     | 99 Analog numbers, 77 ISDN, Web servers $75/mo
Voice: [+1 312 803-MCS1 x219]| Email to "info@mcs.net" WWW: http://www.mcs.net/
Fax:   [+1 312 248-9865]     | 2 FULL DS-3 Internet links; 400Mbps B/W Internal